Brexit

[Carbomb]

3 minutes ago, David said:

This may surprise you, but I actually don't argue with people "in real life." I usually spend my time getting drunk, travelling and enjoying life with family and friends instead. Correcting old people who thinks the country has gone down the shitter so I can feel intellectually superior ain't all that high on my list.

And there you go again. 

This may surprise you, but I actually don't argue with people like that "in real life". 

I argue with people in good faith, not mocking them, and I don't do it to "feel intellectually superior", I do it because I want to see a better world, and I believe a very small step to contributing to that is to try and persuade people of my position, and hope that they join me in that position when I debate with them.

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

10 minutes ago, PowerButchi said:

Buying brown sauce.

You can't call it that these days, it's PC gone mad 

[PowerButchi]

They're inherently good people, so I'm not going to judge them based on their decision to protest vote,.

[Brewster McCloud]

13 minutes ago, David said:

I honestly believe that if there was another vote it would go the same way, perhaps even moreso. The natural reaction when someone is told that they're wrong and it's at least hinted at that they were duped, and were stupid to believe what they did is to clam up and double down, as you say.

For example;

I'm sure that anyone who voted to leave is going to read and hear things similar to this and think "Gosh, this guy who's essentially calling me a fucking moron is right! I'm gonna change my ways! Thanks, man!"

So, what's the alternative, David? 

[PowerButchi]

2 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

So, what's the alternative, David? 

[Dead Mike]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a protest vote. The issue comes when the anger is misplaced & the consequences of said vote result in things being even worse for the people already suffering.

[David]

Just now, Carbomb said:

And there you go again. 

This may surprise you, but I actually don't argue with people like that "in real life". 

I argue with people in good faith, not mocking them, and I don't do it to "feel intellectually superior", I do it because I want to see a better world, and I believe a very small step to contributing to that is to try and persuade people of my position, and hope that they join me in that position when I debate with them.

But why argue at all? Like I said, it usually accomplishes fuck all. There's a reason the old saying "don't discuss religion or politics around the dinner table" is so popular. It's because it usually degenerates into an argument, which does no one any favours at all.

Case in point, my reply to Boydy. No arguing, no ripping his logic to shreds, I simply addressed his points and put forth an opinion. if he replies later that he still isn't buying it, then that's that. I'm not going to say that he's flat out wrong (even though I believe he is) because me saying that isn't going to make him suddenly see the fucking light. That situation is exactly how I'd react "in real life."

Honestly mate, there's a reason why your idea of "a better world" never seems to come to fruition, and it's not because your ideas are terrible, it's because the people you're trying to convince don't like being preached to. The majority of people simply shut down if they feel that they're being questioned or if they think someone is trying to make them feel or look silly. It's just how it is.

If we're talking the political spectrum the truth is that the biggest boon to right-wing success is left-wing activists. What the so-called left are doing clearly isn't fucking working, and hasn't worked for decades now. If anything it actually works against them.

But hey, you keep on keeping on. If there's any silver lining it's that most people who enjoy arguing with other people tend to group together, leaving those who just want to enjoy life and get drunk to do so without worrying that a night out or a dinner is going to descend into a discussion over the media coverage that Natalie Wood gets.

14 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

So, what's the alternative, David?

Not being a confrontational prick?

[Brewster McCloud]

13 minutes ago, David said:

But why argue at all? Like I said, it usually accomplishes fuck all. There's a reason the old saying "don't discuss religion or politics around the dinner table" is so popular. It's because it usually degenerates into an argument, which does no one any favours at all.

Case in point, my reply to Boydy. No arguing, no ripping his logic to shreds, I simply addressed his points and put forth an opinion. if he replies later that he still isn't buying it, then that's that. I'm not going to say that he's flat out wrong (even though I believe he is) because me saying that isn't going to make him suddenly see the fucking light. That situation is exactly how I'd react "in real life."

Honestly mate, there's a reason why your idea of "a better world" never seems to come to fruition, and it's not because your ideas are terrible, it's because the people you're trying to convince don't like being preached to. The majority of people simply shut down if they feel that they're being questioned or if they think someone is trying to make them feel or look silly. It's just how it is.

If we're talking the political spectrum the truth is that the biggest boon to right-wing success is left-wing activists. What the so-called left are doing clearly isn't fucking working, and hasn't worked for decades now. If anything it actually works against them.

But hey, you keep on keeping on. If there's any silver lining it's that most people who enjoy arguing with other people tend to group together, leaving those who just want to enjoy life and get drunk to do so without worrying that a night out or a dinner is going to descend into a discussion over the media coverage that Natalie Wood gets.

Not being a confrontational prick?

Oh, the irony. Now, cards on the table I'm a Conservative. However, what's happened now is a fucking mess and I'm embarrassed by what the likes of Boris Johnson have done. I'm glad I don't live in the UK anymore because I'm just embarrassed by the whole thing. If you just want to chuck out insults, then fine, but I haven't don't that to you. I'm interested in what you have to say. 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Brewster McCloud

[David]

3 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Oh, the irony. Now, cards on the table I'm a Conservative. However, what's happened now is a fucking mess and I'm ashamed of what the likes of Boris Johnson have done. I'm glad I don't live in the UK anymore because I'm just embarrassed by the whole thing. If you just want to chuck out insults, then fine, but I haven't don't that to you. I'm interested in what you have to say. 

I wasn't calling you a confrontational prick, I was talking about people who think that arguing their point is going to turn others to their way of thinking. You asked what I'd do differently, that's the answer.

[Brewster McCloud]

1 minute ago, David said:

I wasn't calling you a confrontational prick, I was talking about people who think that arguing their point is going to turn others to their way of thinking. You asked what I'd do differently, that's the answer.

OK, cool. I'd prefer it if you came up with a solution as to the question of how the Left could sort themselves oot, though!

[Carbomb]

20 minutes ago, David said:

But why argue at all? Like I said, it usually accomplishes fuck all. There's a reason the old saying "don't discuss religion or politics around the dinner table" is so popular. It's because it usually degenerates into an argument, which does no one any favours at all.

Case in point, my reply to Boydy. No arguing, no ripping his logic to shreds, I simply addressed his points and put forth an opinion. if he replies later that he still isn't buying it, then that's that. I'm not going to say that he's flat out wrong (even though I believe he is) because me saying that isn't going to make him suddenly see the fucking light. That situation is exactly how I'd react "in real life."

Honestly mate, there's a reason why your idea of "a better world" never seems to come to fruition, and it's not because your ideas are terrible, it's because the people you're trying to convince don't like being preached to. The majority of people simply shut down if they feel that they're being questioned or if they think someone is trying to make them feel or look silly. It's just how it is.

If we're talking the political spectrum the truth is that the biggest boon to right-wing success is left-wing activists. What the so-called left are doing clearly isn't fucking working, and hasn't worked for decades now. If anything it actually works against them.

But hey, you keep on keeping on. If there's any silver lining it's that most people who enjoy arguing with other people tend to group together, leaving those who just want to enjoy life and get drunk to do so without worrying that a night out or a dinner is going to descend into a discussion over the media coverage that Natalie Wood gets.

Again, you're making the same assumptions. I don't preach, I ask questions, and I entertain challenges to my views and respond. I'm well aware that having a go at people for their views isn't a way to persuade them, I have a brain of my own and have been able to work things out for myself well enough on that score.

My idea of a better world has gradually come to fruition - not because of me, but because of millions of people who think like me do all sorts of things to make that happen. I said my debating with people was a small step, I didn't say it was a decisive action, or that it was even necessarily effective every time - I do it on the off-chance it might, might give someone something to think about before they vote again for a government or a course of action that targets immigrants. I also do it in case the person I'm debating with raises a point of view or element to the debate that I've not considered before, thus giving an extra dimension to my own viewpoint - case in point, when I was debating with you about Tyron Woodley and his comments about racism.

And hey - you keep on doing you, which, at this present moment in time, is a bit rude and condescending. Maybe that's why you think that political arguments consist of that, and result in the people you're arguing with walking off and not listening. Lots of people have political debates; doesn't mean they're saddos who don't enjoy life and socialise, or whose presence is inflicted on others. On occasion, it's even enjoyable, because even in an echo chamber you can discover new points of view for yourself. Also, I don't believe that you're oh-so-cool for school that you never have political debates, discussions or arguments in real life - your comments on the Catalan independence referendum testifies to that.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Carbomb
Was being unnecessarily confrontational. Apologies.

[David]

Just now, Brewster McCloud said:

OK, cool. I'd prefer it if you came up with a solution as to the question of how the Left could sort themselves oot, though!

In short, they can't. The left are fucked as things stand.

1 minute ago, Carbomb said:

Again, you're making the same assumptions. I don't preach, I ask questions, and I entertain challenges to my views and respond. I'm well aware that having a go at people for their views isn't a way to persuade them, I have a brain of my own and have been able to work things out for myself well enough on that score.

My idea of a better world has gradually come to fruition - not because of me, but because of millions of people who think like me do all sorts of things to make that happen. I said my debating with people was a small step, I didn't say it was a decisive action, or that it was even necessarily effective every time - I do it on the off-chance it might, might give someone something to think about before they vote again for a government or a course of action that targets immigrants. I also do it in case the person I'm debating with raises a point of view or element to the debate that I've not considered before, thus giving an extra dimension to my own viewpoint - case in point, when I was debating with you about Tyron Woodley and his comments about racism.

Then maybe what you're talking about isn't actually "arguing" then? Arguing with people would suggest the exchange of views in a heated and somewhat confrontational manner, which never works. It's also the route that many people take.

In Scotland an argument is something that involves raised voices, angry reactions and can occasionally end with the removal of upper-body clothing and the exchanging of balled up hands. 

As I said previously, I'm not one for holding back my opinion. I'm always happy to offer it, such as I did with Boydy there, and as I did in this thread initially.

I made my views on Brexit clear, which is that I'm not keen on the centralisation of power to smaller groups of people who are further removed from the democratic process. I'm not going to try and convince anyone to that way of thinking, because, quite frankly, it's not worth the hassle really. If someone asks me about my view then I'll happily discuss of course.

However, it turns into an interrogation for the most part by those who don't agree, demanding that I address this point or that point, which is a classic example of what I'm talking about. Such an approach is never going to make me think "Gee, you guys are right! The centralisation of power is the way to go, perfect! Someone get another vote sorted sharpish!"

I can sort of understand such an approach if my reasons for wanting to leave the EU are ridiculous or incredibly vague, such as "taking back power" or that banana thing someone mentioned, but my reasoning is shared by many Socialist groups up and down the country, and is a grievance that such groups have had since long before the referendum. In fact, it absolutely astounds me that anyone who considers themselves left-wing can actually support the EU and how it operates.

Even then, getting tore in accomplishes absolutely nothing, apart from affording those doing it a sense of misguided satisfaction and smugness that they're "intellectually superior," which is what happened with Boydy in the Robinson thread.

Let's not pretend that Boydy's opinion isn't popular with a lot of people. In fact, it could be more popular than most of our opinions on the matter in certain places.

Would we rather than people who felt as he does just kept to themselves for fear of being called a cunt and made fun of? How has that approach worked out in the past?

I'm glad he spoke up, because it gave me a chance to try my best to address his concerns and if he does read my reply and takes absolutely anything away from it then that's a small victory. No arguing, just giving him another point of view that he hopefully takes into consideration.

15 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

And hey - you keep on doing you, which, at this present moment in time, is a bit obnoxious, quite frankly. Lots of people have political debates; doesn't mean they're saddos who don't enjoy life and socialise, or whose presence is inflicted on others. On occasion, it's even enjoyable, because even in an echo chamber you can discover new points of view for yourself. Also, I don't believe that you're oh-so-cool for school that you never have political debates, discussions or arguments in real life - your comments on the Catalan independence referendum testifies to that.

Again, it comes down to the definition of arguing. In "real life" I don't argue with anyone. If I'm discussing something, such as the Catalan independence situation for example, and I see the slightest hint that the person I'm discussing it with is looking distressed, upset, angry or looking as though they don't want to continue I'll quickly change the subject to something lighter, offer to buy in some drinks and finish off saying something like "well, we all have opinions and it's always good to hear what other have to say," which helps defuse the situation.

I can guarantee that there's a better chance of them actually looking back at what I said with more consideration after that approach than they would if I continued to hammer home the point in an attempt to bend them to my way of thinking (I'm not saying this is what you do, by the way)

But anyway, who wants a beer? 😉

[Carbomb]

2 minutes ago, David said:

Then maybe what you're talking about isn't actually "arguing" then? Arguing with people would suggest the exchange of views in a heated and somewhat confrontational manner, which never works. It's also the route that many people take.

Then it's a case of semantics. OK.

2 minutes ago, David said:

In Scotland an argument is something that involves raised voices, angry reactions and can occasionally end with the removal of upper-body clothing and the exchanging of balled up hands. 

It's Scotland. That's how people say "good morning" up there.

2 minutes ago, David said:

As I said previously, I'm not one for holding back my opinion. I'm always happy to offer it, such as I did with Boydy there, and as I did in this thread initially.

I made my views on Brexit clear, which is that I'm not keen on the centralisation of power to smaller groups of people who are further removed from the democratic process. I'm not going to try and convince anyone to that way of thinking, because, quite frankly, it's not worth the hassle really. If someone asks me about my view then I'll happily discuss of course.

However, it turns into an interrogation for the most part by those who don't agree, demanding that I address this point or that point, which is a classic example of what I'm talking about. Such an approach is never going to make me think "Gee, you guys are right! The centralisation of power is the way to go, perfect! Someone get another vote sorted sharpish!"

Then why offer any opinion at all? 

Also, who's interrogating? It's not my experience of political debate, even with people I don't agree with.

As to the EU itself, I've said several times that I'm not particularly in favour of it, and that I only just voted Remain because I believe that the way you do something colours what you do, and I don't want this country to become a right-wing, worker-hating cesspool like the US.

The centralisation of power - that's a bit I still need to think about. So far, most of the people I've met for whom that's a problem have admitted they didn't take part in any MEP elections, and didn't ever write to their MEP either. I'd contend that if we wanted to do something about making any governmental body or system accountable to us, whether it's local councils or the European parliament, we need to do something about the culture of apathy regarding those politics, especially if we're angry about things that fall within their remit.

That's not me defending the EU, by the way - that's me pointing out that making that particular argument is pointless, because the whole bit about "taking back control" and regaining "the sovereignty of parliament" is equally meaningless when we apply the same attitude to our own country's way of doing things. Voting once every five years, attempts to change anything are going to be just as futile as you perceive them to be with the EU.

2 minutes ago, David said:

I can sort of understand such an approach if my reasons for wanting to leave the EU are ridiculous or incredibly vague, such as "taking back power" or that banana thing someone mentioned, but my reasoning is shared by many Socialist groups up and down the country, and is a grievance that such groups have had since long before the referendum. In fact, it absolutely astounds me that anyone who considers themselves left-wing can actually support the EU and how it operates.

Even then, getting tore in accomplishes absolutely nothing, apart from affording those doing it a sense of misguided satisfaction and smugness that they're "intellectually superior," which is what happened with Boydy in the Robinson thread.

No, Boydy got that reaction because of who he is and what he's done in the past. You only have to look at past threads to know that - whether it's fair or not is another question, because there still seems to be some debate as to how sorry he is for what he did. 

People still debated his actual points, though.

2 minutes ago, David said:

Let's not pretend that Boydy's opinion isn't popular with a lot of people. In fact, it could be more popular than most of our opinions on the matter in certain places.

Would we rather than people who felt as he does just kept to themselves for fear of being called a cunt and made fun of? How has that approach worked out in the past?

I'm glad he spoke up, because it gave me a chance to try my best to address his concerns and if he does read my reply and takes absolutely anything away from it then that's a small victory. No arguing, just giving him another point of view that he hopefully takes into consideration.

Just wish you could do that with everyone else on here.

I've said it before, David, even though I know it's not a popular viewpoint: I think you're alright, when you're arguing in good faith. But you have a bad habit of showing up and borderline trolling people, when you've got perfectly good arguments to make but don't make them.

Maybe it doesn't fit with what you think is the standard model of "calling someone a cunt and making fun of them", but you're doing pretty much the same thing, just via different methods. 

2 minutes ago, David said:

Again, it comes down to the definition of arguing. In "real life" I don't argue with anyone. If I'm discussing something, such as the Catalan independence situation for example, and I see the slightest hint that the person I'm discussing it with is looking distressed, upset, angry or looking as though they don't want to continue I'll quickly change the subject to something lighter, offer to buy in some drinks and finish off saying something like "well, we all have opinions and it's always good to hear what other have to say," which helps defuse the situation.

I can guarantee that there's a better chance of them actually looking back at what I said with more consideration after that approach than they would if I continued to hammer home the point in an attempt to bend them to my way of thinking (I'm not saying this is what you do, by the way)

But anyway, who wants a beer? 😉

Well, in which case, I don't "argue" like that. I always try and keep things light and casual, insofar any political discussion can be, and if it does get heavy, I usually try to defuse the situation.

One particular thing I've come to recognise is that when any kind of political discussion goes on long enough, especially with people you don't agree with, eventually it almost invariably boils down to things that are simply a matter of opinion that can't really be reasoned out - such as the role of government in society and whether it's merely there to oversee the mechanical function of it, or to go further and try to ensure that none of the people it governs are left behind to suffer or fail (I am of the latter opinion).

 

 

I want a beer. 

[Bus Surfer]

32 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

 

I want a beer. 

We all do. 

[Carbomb]

1 minute ago, Silky Kisser said:

We all do. 

We should all have one.